User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 34

  1. #11
    Senior Member laughingebony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LostInNerSpace View Post
    Pro life is a religious argument in disguise. If it were really a "pro life" argument those same people would not be in favor of the death penalty or guns.
    I don't follow your reasoning here. How does your second statement imply that pro-life is a religious argument? Also, your second statement relies on a few false premises. Specifically...

    1. Being in favor of guns is incompatible with being in favor of life.
    2. Being in favor of the death penalty is incompatible with being in favor of life.
    3. All those who are pro-life are necessarily in favor of the death penalty and guns.

    I can dispute 1 and 3 on the spot.

    Some opponents of gun control assert that guns keep people safe. Outlawing guns would have little effect on criminals' access to guns. Since criminals tend to disregard the law, anyway, they would get their guns in spite of the law. The average, law-abiding citizen, however, would have trouble obtaining a gun. Since he would have no gun, he would be more vulnerable to the criminal, who has a gun. Loosening gun laws would allow the average law-abiding citizen to have a gun, as well, and the criminal would have no advantage. In this sense, guns can be seen as an equalizer -- they put the victim on level ground with the criminal. As such, the first premise can be reconciled with being in favor of life.

    I can dispute the third premise simply by stating that I am pro-life and am not in favor of the death penalty.

    Keep the big picture in mind. I am not arguing for less gun control or for pro-life. I am disputing your assertion that pro-life is a religious argument. Even if your second statement did imply the first, it wouldn't matter, since your second statement relies on faulty premises.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Morals were created to provide a framework for conflict resolution... when one person's desires are at odds with those of another. The system cannot function without a common set of rules for everyone to follow.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Morals were created to provide a framework for conflict resolution... when one person's desires are at odds with those of another. The system cannot function without a common set of rules for everyone to follow.
    Is the common set of rules the same as an absolute set of rules? What makes a set of rules a common set of rules? Are these rules absolute or contingent?

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pippi View Post
    We seek moral absolutes so we don't have to think.
    Ah, yes. I read that black and white thinking (absolutes) can also be an indicator of mental illness depending on the degree it is used.

  5. #15
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Black-and-white thinking is a holdover from the days where quick response to stimulus was absolutely necessary for survival. You get rules as to what tends to lead to good outcomes and what tends to lead to bad outcomes. Since considering each situation takes time, absolute standards can often lead to a greater level of survival. They also lead to great mistakes, but less often.

  6. #16
    Branded with Satan murkrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    1,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pippi View Post
    We seek moral absolutes so we don't have to think.
    We seek moral absolutes to protect ourselves from the thinking of others.

    The same people who claim abortion to be morally ambiguous and therefore subjectively decidable hold personal freedom as a moral absolute.

    Personal freedom is their shield against the invasive thoughts of others, however the concept of personal freedom as a right is just as subjective as the concept of a person.
    wails from the crypt.

  7. #17
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by murkrow View Post
    We seek moral absolutes to protect ourselves from the thinking of others.

    The same people who claim abortion to be morally ambiguous and therefore subjectively decidable hold personal freedom as a moral absolute.

    Personal freedom is their shield against the invasive thoughts of others, however the concept of personal freedom as a right is just as subjective as the concept of a person.
    So it's less against others' thinking than it is the ambiguity of subjectivity? Especially if there is no clear-cut answer?

  8. #18
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    ppl seek moral absolutes bc they have been hurt in one way or another in the past by society at large.

    " God hates ALL gays!"

    well, that is wrong in a biblical context but someone might emphasize that bc they had a problem getting people on "their side" in the past. so they seek an absolute even if they know biblically its not quite right to say that, bc of the support they might receive.

    sometimes it is bc people seek group think. sometimes its bc applying a judgement to different situations is too hard for them. who knows why. im not even sure you should lump moral absolutes together.

  9. #19
    Branded with Satan murkrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    1,635

    Default

    @onemoretime

    The effect of forming a moral absolute is to restrict the actions of others.

    However, you're right, the source of a moral absolute is always subjective, and that's the reason that these absolutes are incompatible.

    The problem of the state in lawmaking is that it requires an absolute in order to operate. The one we're operating on now is opportunism. A law is given the right to exist not according to its utilitarian (probably the most powerful moral philosophy currently) validity but according to its potential to placate and attract positive attention from masses.
    wails from the crypt.

  10. #20
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    I think people who need moral absolutes lack a certain kind of intelligence. Really. CHILDREN need moral absolutes. AUTISTIC PEOPLE need moral absolutes. Supposedly "normal" adults who need moral absolutes apparently have a hard time thinking for themselves.

    I'm not saying that these people can't be intelligent in some form, but they're missing something in their frontal lobe.

Similar Threads

  1. Why do we do the things we do?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 12:28 PM
  2. Why do we die?
    By JocktheMotie in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 08-14-2009, 03:14 PM
  3. Why do we not want those we care about to do drugs?
    By KarenParker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-21-2009, 02:29 PM
  4. how do we learn morals
    By passingby in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-26-2008, 10:15 PM
  5. Why Do We Find Violence/Misfortune Funny?
    By RansomedbyFire in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-29-2007, 07:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO